Case: 1:22-cv-03729 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/22 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`ASHA BINBEK, individually, and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`DOORDASH, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 1:22-cv-3729
`
`
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff ASHA BINBEK (“Plaintiff”), individually, and on behalf of two classes of
`
`similarly situated individuals (the “Classes”), brings this Class Action Complaint against
`
`Defendant DOORDASH, INC. (“Defendant” or “DoorDash”), for money damages and injunctive
`
`relief arising out of Defendant’s knowing, willful, and unceasing robocalls to Plaintiff’s and
`
`members of the Classes’ wireless telephones in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
`
`Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., and Plaintiff’s and members of the Classes’ right to
`
`privacy, as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a nationwide consumer class action against DoorDash for sending
`
`unsolicited robocalls to consumers’ cellular telephone lines using prerecorded or artificial voices
`
`in violation of the TCPA. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b), and causing unwanted telephone calls to Plaintiff’s
`
`and members of the Classes’ personal telephones in violation of their right to privacy.
`
`2.
`
`DoorDash did not obtain the prior express consent of Plaintiff or members of the
`
`Classes before sending the unsolicited robocalls that form the basis of their claims. In addition,
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03729 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/22 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:2
`
`DoorDash repeatedly ignores and disregards requests from Plaintiff and members of the Classes
`
`to stop calling their phone numbers.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff brings this lawsuit to recover damages, equitable relief––including
`
`injunctive relief––and to obtain redress on behalf of herself and members of the Classes who were
`
`and are beset by DoorDash’s unauthorized, negligent, knowing, and willful automated robocalling
`
`campaigns causing actual harm to consumers.
`
`PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff is a citizen of Illinois. Plaintiff’s primary phone number is xxx-xxx-8700
`
`(“Plaintiff’s phone number”).
`
`5.
`
`Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
`
`California.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the
`
`action arises under the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction
`
`over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`7.
`
`The Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant
`
`directed and sent the telephone calls that form the basis of Plaintiff’s claims to Plaintiff in Illinois.
`
`Defendant does business in this District, and Defendant’s contacts with this District are sufficient
`
`to subject it to personal jurisdiction.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events and omissions underlying
`
`Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03729 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/22 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:3
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`9.
`
`DoorDash is a food delivery service that permits individuals to order food from
`
`local restaurants and have it delivered to them by a DoorDash-affiliated courier (known as a
`
`“Dasher”).
`
`10.
`
`As part of its business operations, DoorDash places telephone calls to restaurants
`
`that are listed as vendors on DoorDash’s website or mobile app, as well as DoorDash’s customers
`
`(the “Telephone Calls”)
`
`11.
`
`Although these Telephone Calls may be appropriate with respect to restaurants who
`
`have an existing business relationship with DoorDash, as well as DoorDash patrons who have
`
`placed orders using DoorDash—at least insofar as the Telephone Calls relate to those restaurants’
`
`and patrons’ relationship with DoorDash—DoorDash has a pattern and practice of placing
`
`Telephone Calls to individuals (such as Plaintiff and members of the Classes) who do not have
`
`any relationship with DoorDash, and/or that do not relate in any way whatsoever to their
`
`relationship with DoorDash (if one exists).
`
`12. Many of DoorDash’s Telephone Calls are robocalls using prerecorded or artificial
`
`voices (the “Robocalls”).
`
`13.
`
`Accordingly, DoorDash frequently places Telephone Calls and Robocalls to
`
`persons when DoorDash did not obtain their prior express consent to do so.
`
`14. Moreover, even when recipients of DoorDash’s Telephone Calls and Robocalls
`
`inform DoorDash that those Telephone Calls and Robocalls are unwanted and request that
`
`DoorDash cease making Telephone Calls and Robocalls to their phones, DoorDash continues to
`
`place unwanted and unsolicited Telephone Calls and Robocalls to these persons.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03729 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/22 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:4
`
`15.
`
`In fact, many complaints about DoorDash’s unwanted Telephone Calls and
`
`Robocalls are publicly available online:
`
`From ShouldIAnswer.com1
`
`
`
`“Every time I answer it’s trying to confirm an order from doordash for a
`
`different name. If you answer they’ll call you back 5+ times with more
`
`names.”
`
`“These people don’t let up––mostly silent buy catch a few word from
`
`automated recording sometimes.”
`
`“Will call all hours of the night back to back and bright and early the next
`
`day. I haven’t used DD since January been getting calls for 4 days straight.”
`
`“Left several pre recorded messages. Something about door dash.”
`
`From FindWhoCallsYou.com2
`
`“CALLS 10 TIMES A DAY SCAMMER”
`
`“Calls restaurant client of mine 30 times a day, we finally blocked it at the
`
`pbx”
`
`“Calls my restaurant 20 to 30 times a day and no one is ever on the line”
`
`“THIS CALL IS A SPAM, IMAKE MORE THAN 12 DAILY CALLS,
`
`ENOUGH! NO MORE CALLED”
`
`“calls three times continuously didn’t pick, gets automated voice message
`
`which just says, press 3 something something”
`
`“Calls my pizza place like 20 times a day and no one is ever on the line”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 https://www.shouldianswer.com/phone-number/6504504940
`
` https://findwhocallsyou.com/6504504940?CallerInfo
`
` 2
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03729 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/22 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Scammer called without leaving a message”
`
`“18+ calls to confirm an order. Never used DoorDash a day in my life”
`
`“Wont’ stop calling.”
`
`“Hey a**holes, quit calling people and interrupting their lives with your
`
`stupid scams. Nobody believes in your bullsh*t.”
`
`“Numerous calls received on regular basis..”
`
`From directory.youmail.com3
`
`“an automated message telling me to push 1 to confirm order. I don’t even
`
`use door dash”
`
`“calls 10 times a day need them to stop”
`
`“18+ calls to confirm an order. Never used DoorDash a day in my life”
`
`FACTS RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFF
`
`16.
`
`Beginning in February 2022, DoorDash has been placing Telephone Calls and
`
`Robocalls to Plaintiff’s personal phone number.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff estimates that between February 2022 and the date this Complaint is filed,
`
`DoorDash has caused to be placed at least 242 Telephone Calls to Plaintiff’s telephone number,
`
`approximately 203 of which are prerecorded/artificial voice Robocalls to Plaintiff from 650-450-
`
`4940. Typically, a voicemail is left each time.
`
`18.
`
`At this time, Plaintiff can identify the following unwanted and unsolicited
`
`Telephone Calls and Robocalls that DoorDash has placed to Plaintiff’s phone number:
`
`DATE PHONE NUMBER
`
`QUANTITY
`
`2/28/22 650-450-4940
`
`3/1/22 650-450-4940
`
`9
`
`9
`
`
`3 https://directory.youmail.com/directory/phone/6504504940
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03729 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/22 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:6
`
`3/2/22 650-450-4940
`
`3/2/22 650-437-9507
`
`3/3/22 650-450-4940
`
`3/3/22 Unknown
`
`3/4/22 650-450-4940
`
`3/5/22 650-450-4940
`
`3/11/22 650-450-4940
`
`3/11/22 Unknown
`
`3/11/22 415-805-6642
`
`3/12/22 Unknown
`
`3/30/22 650-450-4940
`
`4/5/22 650-450-4940
`
`6/2/22 650-450-4940
`
`6/2/22 415-805-6642
`
`6/8/22 650-450-4940
`
`6/8/22 Unknown
`
`6/9/22 650-450-4940
`
`6/10/22 650-450-4940
`
`6/10/22 Unknown
`
`6/17/22 650-450-4940
`
`6/17/22 415-991-6684
`
`6/18/22 650-450-4940
`
`6/18/22 650-727-1289
`
`6/19/22 650-450-4940
`
`6/19/22 415-275-6644
`
`6/19/22 Unknown
`
`6/20/22 650-450-4940
`
`6/20/22 650-362-8919
`
`6/21/22 650-450-4940
`
`6/22/22 650-450-4940
`
`6/22/22 Unknown
`
`6
`
`6
`
`1
`
`6
`
`1
`
`6
`
`3
`
`9
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`3
`
`6
`
`8
`
`1
`
`9
`
`1
`
`9
`
`3
`
`1
`
`6
`
`1
`
`6
`
`1
`
`15
`
`1
`
`1
`
`4
`
`1
`
`6
`
`11
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03729 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/22 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:7
`
`6/29/22 650-450-4940
`
`6/30/22 650-450-4940
`
`7/1/22 650-450-4940
`
`7/1/22 415-996-1483
`
`7/8/22 650-450-4940
`
`7/9/22 628-800-0576
`
`7/9/22 650-450-4940
`
`7/10/22 650-450-4940
`
`7/10/22 650-437-9507
`
`7/15/2022 650-450-4940
`
`7/15/2022 628-600-0930
`
`7/15/2022 650-897-4835
`
`7/17/2022 650-640-4940
`
`7/17/2022 833-574-1005
`
`7/17/2022 Anonymous
`
`7/18/2022 650-640-4940
`
`7/18/2022 Anonymous
`
`10
`
`19
`
`6
`
`1
`
`3
`
`1
`
`7
`
`6
`
`1
`
`18
`
`1
`
`1
`
`6
`
`1
`
`1
`
`9
`
`3
`
`Plaintiff reserves the right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d), to move to supplement her
`
`complaint to include additional Telephone Calls and Robocalls, if necessary.
`
`19.
`
`The phone calls listed above that originate from the telephone number 650-450-
`
`4940 are Robocalls placed using a prerecorded or artificial voice. All of these Robocalls come
`
`from the same phone number, use the same artificial or prerecorded British female-sounding
`
`accent on all calls, have the same duration, and include a request to press a series of numbers on
`
`the phone to interact with the messenger.
`
`20.
`
`The vast majority of the Telephone Calls and Robocalls that Plaintiff has received
`
`from DoorDash—including all of the Robocalls from 650-450-4940—seek to ascertain a local
`
`restaurant’s (the “Local Restaurant”) hours of operation and/or business address.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03729 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/22 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:8
`
`21. Many other Telephone Calls and Robocalls that Plaintiff has received from
`
`DoorDash pertain to issues with patrons’ orders from the Local Restaurant (e.g., a Dasher cannot
`
`locate the restaurant, the customer has lodged a complaint about the order, etc.). These calls are
`
`transmitted by DoorDash’s systems and are initiated by DoorDash on behalf of Dashers or
`
`DoorDash customers who have placed an order from the Local Restaurant.
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff is not affiliated in any way with the Local Restaurant, and has never even
`
`patronized the Local Restaurant.
`
`23.
`
`As such, Plaintiff did not provide her consent to receive these Telephone Calls and
`
`Robocalls from DoorDash.
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff has tried on several occasions to get DoorDash to stop the incessant
`
`Telephone Calls and Robocalls, but to no avail. DoorDash simply disregards Plaintiff’s requests.
`
`25.
`
`Specifically, Plaintiff has called DoorDash directly at least six times, the earliest
`
`occurring on or around February 28, 2022. On each of these calls, Plaintiff informed DoorDash
`
`that she (1) is not affiliated in any way with the Local Restaurant, (2) is receiving Telephone Calls
`
`and Robocalls from DoorDash in error, and (3) does not wish to receive any further Telephone
`
`Calls and Robocalls from DoorDash. Each time, the representative with whom Plaintiff spoke
`
`informed Plaintiff that he or she will look into the matter and get back to her.
`
`26.
`
`In addition, on or around March 2, 2022, Plaintiff submitted two complaints to
`
`DoorDash via its text chat platform, in which Plaintiff also informed DoorDash that she (1) is not
`
`affiliated in any way with the Local Restaurant, (2) is receiving Telephone Calls and Robocalls
`
`from DoorDash in error, and (3) does not wish to receive any further Telephone Calls and
`
`Robocalls from DoorDash.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03729 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/22 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:9
`
`27. Moreover, on at least three instances—including most recently on or around April
`
`5,
`
`2022—Plaintiff
`
`navigated
`
`on
`
`her
`
`Internet
`
`browser
`
`to
`
`the
`
`URL,
`
`https://help.doordash.com/s/optout, and submitted a request to opt out of communications from
`
`DoorDash.
`
`28.
`
`Despite Plaintiff’s repeated “do not call” requests, the unwanted Telephone Calls
`
`and Robocalls continued unabated.
`
`29.
`
`As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer invasions of
`
`privacy, and has expended time, effort, and resources to opt out and try to compel DoorDash to
`
`cease the incessant Telephone Calls and Robocalls to Plaintiff’s phone number. The unwanted
`
`Telephone Calls and Robocalls intrude upon Plaintiff’s solitude, interfere with her time and use of
`
`her phone, drain her phone’s battery, take up data storage space, and cause inconvenience,
`
`annoyance, and mental anguish. These Telephone Calls and Robocalls also interfere with
`
`Plaintiff’s ability to perform tasks required by her employer, as those tasks frequently require
`
`Plaintiff to use her phone to place and receive calls, which is sometimes rendered inoperable as a
`
`result of the volume of Telephone Calls and Robocalls that Plaintiff receives. Accordingly,
`
`Plaintiff has suffered tangible and intangible financial harm and emotional distress that her
`
`personal, closely guarded information and privacy, including Plaintiff’s phone number, is being
`
`disseminated to strangers and invaded upon.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), on behalf
`
`30.
`
`of a nationwide subclass of similarly situated individuals (the “TCPA Class”), defined as follows:
`
`All persons in the United States to whose cellular telephone number
`Defendant placed one or more unsolicited phone calls using an artificial or
`prerecorded voice, which was not made with the person’s prior express
`consent.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03729 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/22 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:10
`
`
`Excluded from the TCPA Class are: (1) Defendant, Defendant’s agents, subsidiaries, parents,
`successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parent has a controlling interest,
`and those entities’ current or former officers and directors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is
`assigned and the Judge’s immediate family; (3) any person who executes and files a timely request
`for exclusion from the TCPA Class; (4) any persons who have had their claims in this matter finally
`adjudicated and/or otherwise released; and (5) the legal representatives, successors and assigns of
`any such excluded person.
`
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf
`
`of a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals (the “Privacy Class”), defined as follows:
`
`All persons in the United States to whose personal telephone number
`DoorDash or DoorDash delivery persons placed more than one phone call
`after such person requested not to receive such phone calls.
`
`Excluded from the Privacy Class are: (1) Defendant, Defendant’s agents, subsidiaries, parents,
`successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parent has a controlling interest,
`and those entities’ current or former officers and directors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is
`assigned and the Judge’s immediate family; (3) any person who executes and files a timely request
`for exclusion from the Privacy Class; (4) any persons who have had their claims in this matter
`finally adjudicated and/or otherwise released; and (5) the legal representatives, successors and
`assigns of any such excluded person.
`
`
`32.
`
`Numerosity: Upon information and belief, the Classes each consist of thousands
`
`of members. While only Defendant knows the precise number and identity of members of the
`
`Classes, members of the Classes can easily be identified through Defendant’s records, or by other
`
`means. Moreover, according to complaints available online and because of the nature of
`
`Defendant’s robocalling, it is reasonable to infer that thousands of persons are in the Classes.
`
`Indeed, the conduct complained of herein impacts persons nationwide. For instance, Jeramy
`
`Galster initiated a lawsuit against Defendant, alleging over 40 robocalls from the same number as
`
`the one at issue here: 650-450-4940. See Galster v. DoorDash, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-08785 (N.D.
`
`Cal.).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03729 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/22 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:11
`
`33.
`
`Commonality and Predominance: There are several questions of law and fact
`
`common to the claims of Plaintiff and members of the Classes, which predominate over any
`
`individual issues, including:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Whether Defendant placed phone calls to TCPA Class members (other than
`a message made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express
`consent of the called party) using prerecorded or artificial voices to phone
`numbers assigned to a cellular phone service;
`
`Whether Defendant violated Plaintiff’s and Privacy Class members’ right
`to privacy by failing and refusing to honor their requests not to receive
`phone calls from Defendant, Defendant’s delivery personnel, or
`Defendant’s customers;
`
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Whether Defendant negligently, knowingly, or willfully engaged in
`unlawful conduct;
`
`Whether Plaintiff and members of the Classes were damaged by
`Defendant’s unlawful conduct, and the extent of damages for each violation.
`
`Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of members of the Classes.
`
`34.
`
`All claims are based on the same legal and factual issues. Plaintiff and members of the Classes
`
`suffered the same tangible and intangible harms as a result of Defendant’s uniform and widespread
`
`unlawful conduct. Plaintiff received several unwanted and unsolicited Telephone Calls and
`
`Robocalls from Defendant to her cellular phone number, even after requesting that she not receive
`
`any more calls. The same is true of the members of the Classes.
`
`35.
`
`Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and
`
`protect the interests of the members of the Classes, and has retained counsel competent and
`
`experienced in complex class actions, including TCPA class actions. Plaintiff has no interest
`
`antagonistic to those of the members of the Classes, and Defendant has no defenses unique to
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03729 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/22 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:12
`
`36.
`
`Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
`
`efficient adjudication of this controversy. The expense and burden of individual litigation would
`
`make it impracticable or impossible for proposed members of the Classes to prosecute their claims
`
`individually. Class action relief is essential in order to compel Defendant to comply with the TCPA.
`
`Moreover, based on Defendant’s widespread and uniform misconduct, Defendant has acted on
`
`grounds generally applicable to the Classes, thereby making both final injunctive and declaratory
`
`relief with respect to the Classes as a whole appropriate. Additionally, Defendant’s unlawful
`
`conduct alleged herein is substantially likely to continue in the future unless enjoined. Finally, the
`
`trial and the litigation of Plaintiff’s and members of the Classes’ claims are manageable.
`
`COUNT I
`Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the TCPA Class)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1–36 as though fully stated herein.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant failed to obtain prior express consent to place Robocalls to Plaintiff and
`
`TCPA Class members.
`
`39.
`
`Defendant used prerecorded or artificial voices when it sent the Robocalls to
`
`Plaintiff’s and TCPA Class members’ cellular/residential phones.
`
`40.
`
`Defendant’s Robocalls to Plaintiff’s and Class members’ cellular/residential phones
`
`were not for emergency purposes.
`
`41.
`
`Any and all decisions, activity, and implementation about the calling procedures
`
`that led to the Robocalls to Plaintiff’s and TCPA Class members’ cellular/residential phones
`
`originated with or were designed, implemented, and approved by Defendant.
`
`42.
`
`Based on the allegations herein, Defendant violated the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. §
`
`227(b)(1)(A)(iii), by placing non-emergency calls to the cellular/residential telephone numbers of
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03729 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/22 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:13
`
`Plaintiff and TCPA Class members using an artificial or prerecorded voice without obtaining prior
`
`express consent.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff and TCPA Class members suffered aggravation, stress, nuisance, and
`
`invasions of their privacy and their right to remain free from unwanted Robocalls.
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff and TCPA Class members also suffered lost money in paying to receive
`
`the unwanted Robocalls and lost time responding to and listening to the unwanted messages, typing
`
`and sending stop requests to unsubscribe from the phone calls, suffered a depleted battery life of
`
`their cellular phones which required them to replenish the charge of their phones using electricity
`
`they had to pay for, and lost the use of data storage on their devices or in the cloud for which they
`
`pay, occupying and converting storage space that slowed down the processing speeds of their
`
`devices and which storage could have instead been used for purposes authorized or desired by
`
`Plaintiff and TCPA Class members.
`
`45.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., Plaintiff and each
`
`of the TCPA Class members are entitled to an award of actual damages or $500.00 in statutory
`
`damages for each and every violation, whichever is greater, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).
`
`46.
`
`The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and multiple
`
`knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA. As a result of Defendant’s knowing and/or willful
`
`violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., Plaintiff and each of the TCPA Class members are entitled
`
`to an award of $1,500.00 in statutory damages for each violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47
`
`U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).
`
`47. Moreover, because Defendant refuses to honor Plaintiff’s and TCPA Class
`
`members’ repeated requests to cease its Robocalls, Plaintiff and TCPA Class members are at a
`
`substantial risk to receive unwanted and unsolicited Robocalls from Defendant in the future.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03729 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/22 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:14
`
`48.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff and the TCPA Class members are also entitled to, and do,
`
`seek injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in the future.
`
`COUNT II
`Violations of Rights to Privacy
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Privacy Class)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1–36 as though fully stated herein.
`
`Defendant invaded the right to privacy of Plaintiff and Privacy Class members by
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`placing unwanted Telephone Calls and Robocalls to Plaintiff and Privacy Class members, and by
`
`displaying, disclosing, and allowing Defendant’s representatives, agents, delivery personnel, and
`
`customers access and unfettered use of Plaintiff’s and Privacy Class members’ contact information
`
`to make unauthorized and unwanted phone calls to their phone numbers.
`
`51.
`
`Defendant knowingly and willfully failed and refused to honor Plaintiff’s and
`
`Privacy Class members’ requests that Defendant and its representatives, agents, delivery
`
`personnel, and customers stop placing Telephone Calls and Robocalls to their personal telephones.
`
`Defendant’s conduct was a knowing and wanton disregard of Plaintiff’s and Privacy Class
`
`members’ right of privacy and intruded upon their seclusion.
`
`52.
`
`Defendant portrayed Plaintiff and Privacy Class members in a false light.
`
`Defendant’s representatives, agents, delivery personnel, and customers placed phone calls to
`
`Plaintiff and Privacy Class members because Defendant knowingly falsely associated their phone
`
`numbers with restaurants or customers that use Defendant’s services. Because Defendant falsely
`
`portrays Plaintiff and Privacy Class members as operators of restaurants or DoorDash customers,
`
`Plaintiff and Privacy Class members are beset by large volumes of Telephone Calls and Robocalls
`
`to their phones that they cannot stop, despite demanding that Defendant stop the Telephone Calls
`
`and Robocalls.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03729 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/22 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:15
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`Defendant’s conduct alleged herein is highly offensive to a reasonable person.
`
`Plaintiff and Privacy Class members suffered aggravation, nuisance, and invasions
`
`of their privacy and their right to remain free from unwanted Telephone Calls and Robocalls.
`
`Plaintiff and Privacy Class members also suffered lost money in paying to receive the unwanted
`
`Telephone Calls and Robocalls, and lost time responding to and listening to the unwanted
`
`messages, typing and sending stop messages to unsubscribe from the Telephone Calls and
`
`Robocalls, suffered a depleted battery life of their phones which required them to replenish the
`
`charge of their phones using electricity they had to pay for, and lost the use of data storage on their
`
`devices or in the cloud for which they pay, occupying and converting storage space that slowed
`
`down the processing speeds of their devices and which storage could have instead been used for
`
`purposes authorized or desired by Plaintiff and Privacy Class members.
`
`55. Moreover, because Defendant refuses to honor Plaintiff’s and Privacy Class
`
`members’ repeated requests to cease its Telephone Calls and Robocalls, and continues to associate
`
`Plaintiff’s and Privacy Class members’ personal phone numbers with restaurants or customers that
`
`use Defendant’s services, Plaintiff and TCPA Class members are at a substantial risk to suffer
`
`further invasions of their privacy in the future.
`
`56.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Privacy Class members
`
`seek actual, enhanced, and punitive damages, and equitable and injunctive relief, as allowable
`
`under the law.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, prays
`
`for an Order as follows:
`
`a.
`
`Finding that this action satisfies the prerequisites for maintenance as a class
`action and certifying the Classes defined herein;
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03729 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/19/22 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:16
`
`
`b.
`
`
`c.
`
`
`d.
`
`
`e.
`
`
`f.
`
`Designating Plaintiff as representative of the Classes, and the undersigned
`counsel as Class Counsel;
`
`Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the Classes and against
`Defendant;
`
`Awarding Plaintiff and the Classes actual damages, statutory damages,
`treble damages, and punitive damages, and all other forms of available
`relief;
`
`Entering an injunction enjoining Defendant from placing further unsolicited
`and/or unwanted phone calls to Plaintiff and members of the Classes, and
`from engaging in the other unlawful conduct alleged herein; and
`
`Granting other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
`
`
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all counts so triable.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff ASHA BINBEK, individually, and
`on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`By: /s/ Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr.
`Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr. (IL #6231944)
`tom@attorneyzim.com
`Sharon A. Harris
`sharon@attorneyzim.com
`Matthew C. De Re
`matt@attorneyzim.com
`Jeffrey D. Blake
`jeff@attorneyzim.com
`ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
`77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
`Chicago, Illinois 60602
`Tel: (312) 440-0020
`Fax: (312) 440-4180
`www.attorneyzim.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes
`
`
`
`16
`
`